A.M. No.

MTJ-00-1329 March 8, 2001

(Formerly A.M. No. OCA IPI No. 99-706-MTJ)

HERMINIA BORJA-MANZANO, petitioner,

vs.
JUDGE ROQUE R. SANCHEZ, MTC, Infanta, Pangasinan, respondent.

Facts:

Complainant in this case avers that she is the lawful wife of the late David Manzano who contracted
another marriage with one Luzviminda Payao before respondent Judge. When respondent solemnized
said marriage, he knew or ought to know that the same was void and bigamous, as the marriage
contract clearly stated that both contracting parties were separated. Respondent claimed that when he
officiated the marriage, he did not know that Manzano was legally married. What he knew was that the
two had been living together as husband and wife for seven years already without the benefit of
marriage.

Issue/s:

Can the respondent be held liable for gross ignorance of the law when he solemnized a void and
bigamous marriage.

Held:

Yes.

Respondent Judge knew or ought to know that a subsisting previous marriage is a diriment impediment,
which would make the subsequent marriage null and void.7 In fact, in his Comment, he stated that had
he known that the late Manzano was married he would have discouraged him from contracting another
marriage. And respondent Judge cannot deny knowledge of Manzano’s and Payao’s subsisting previous
marriage, as the same was clearly stated in their separate affidavits which were subscribed and sworn to
before him.

Clearly, respondent Judge demonstrated gross ignorance of the law when he solemnized a void and
bigamous marriage. The maxim "ignorance of the law excuses no one" has special application to
judges,8 who, under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, should be the embodiment of
competence, integrity, and independence. It is highly imperative that judges be conversant with the law
and basic legal principles.9 And when the law transgressed is simple and elementary, the failure to know
it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.10